Considering programming language design, is the claim “C++ is an object-oriented language and is simpler than Java” accurate?

Introduction / Context:
This item asks you to evaluate a comparative statement about two mainstream languages. Both C++ and Java support object-oriented programming, but their complexity profiles differ substantially due to memory management, multiple inheritance, templates, and low-level features present in C++.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• C++ supports multiple paradigms (procedural, OO, generic, metaprogramming) and low-level control (pointers, manual memory, RAII).
• Java emphasizes managed memory (garbage collection), a simpler inheritance model (single class inheritance, multiple interfaces), and a standardized runtime (JVM).
• “Simpler” refers broadly to language features, memory model, and typical learning curve.

Concept / Approach:
While both enable OO, C++ includes manual memory management, operator overloading, templates with complex type deduction, and multiple inheritance, which increase cognitive load. Java’s design intentionally removes many of these complexities, trading low-level control for safety and simplicity. Therefore, the statement that C++ is simpler than Java is inaccurate.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Introductory curricula often teach Java as an easier first OO language, citing fewer footguns and standardized runtime behavior.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Correct or partial-accuracy options ignore the broader complexity of C++.
• Templates/generics comparison does not flip overall complexity.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating performance or control with simplicity; overlooking Java’s omission of pointers and destructors as a simplification.

Final Answer:
Incorrect